2019 (1) TMI 626 - HC - Customs

Detention of goods - imports consignment imported through Bills of Entry dated 11-10-2017 - Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - This Court is of the opinion that since the goods have been in detention for more than a year and no irregularity of any kind whatsoever has been indicated by the DRI and furthermore, that the DRI has also expressed no objection for the release of the goods upon payment of the differential duty, if any, the imported goods should be released to the present petitioners who are undoubtedly the actual beneficiaries of the import. This is an unfortunate case where the respondents/Customs authorities intentionally appeared to have omitted issuing the detention certificate - After considering the application for waiver of the demurrage/detention charges, if any liability accrues, that shall be on account of the customs authorities in the circumstances of the case. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Detention of imported goods, irregularity in importation process, release of goods, liability for demurrage/detention charges.

Detention of Imported Goods:
The petitioner challenged the detention of goods imported through Bills of Entry dated 11-10-2017 by M/s. Manoj Enterprises. The goods were detained and handed over to the custodian/CELEBI. Despite no prohibition on the goods, an irregularity was noted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) that the goods were imported using a dummy IEC. The DRI recommended release of the goods to the actual beneficiaries, the present petitioners and Afzal Khan. The DRI expressed no objection to the release of goods to the concerned beneficiaries upon payment of any differential duty.

Irregularity in Importation Process:
The Counsel for the Revenue argued that if the importer purchases the goods, they could be released. The Court observed that the goods had been detained for over a year with no irregularities indicated by the DRI. Given the DRI's recommendation and no objection for release upon payment of any differential duty, the Court ordered the release of goods to the present petitioners, the actual beneficiaries, upon depositing the required duty within a week.

Release of Goods:
The Court found it unfortunate that the Customs authorities omitted issuing the detention certificate intentionally. It was decided that any liability for demurrage/detention charges, if applicable, would be on the customs authorities in this case. The writ petition was allowed, and the goods were to be released to the petitioners upon payment of any outstanding duty.

Liability for Demurrage/Detention Charges:
The judgment highlighted that any liability arising from demurrage/detention charges, after considering an application for waiver, would be the responsibility of the customs authorities in the circumstances of the case. The writ petition was allowed, and the goods were to be released to the petitioners upon compliance with the payment of any differential duty.